Poll: Should US back out of ABM Treaty?

[Ohwell]

Should they or not? The United States announced they were backing out today, and I personally fear President Bush may want to start building up his nuclear armament. I think the US had better stay in, for they even started the treaty. President Bush, I believe, is a warmonger.

 

[amadeus]

The ABM treaty was for the United States and Soviet Union:

http://www.sitesatlas.com/Atlas/TPol/polnav.gif

Tell me where the Soviet Union is on this map..oh, can't find it?

 

[Ohwell]

Well, it was for them, but the US has no right to build up it's nuclear power, it actually is still active with Russia, they even said if the US backed out they would back out too, maybe even triggering another arms race!

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Ohwell
Well, it was for them, but the US has no right to build up it's nuclear power, it actually is still active with Russia, they even said if the US backed out they would back out too, maybe even triggering another arms race!

The strategic defense program is to intercept missiles so that they can't strike the United States.

Second, the Russians already HAD those missile systems, the treaty basically says WE can't have them.

 

[Ohwell]

I almost forgot about the Strategic Missile Defense Proposal! This seems to be a pattern, First the SMD Proposal, then the US backing out of ABM treaty, are you thinking what i'm thinking?

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Ohwell
I almost forgot about the Strategic Missile Defense Proposal! This seems to be a pattern, First the SMD Proposal, then the US backing out of ABM treaty, are you thinking what i'm thinking?

We already had the START and START II programs for decreasing the number of nuclear weapons. The strategic defense, as I said earlier, is to intercept weapons from other nations.

Countries like North Korea are developing nuclear weapons and has already flown a missile over Japan, Libya has recently denied attempts to get Uranium, and Russia is helping Iran build a nuclear power plant.

Peace is only attained through strength, never through weakness.

 

[Ohwell]

Though you are right, it seems to me the US is turning quite militaristic these past years, the people of the US seem to become very vengeful on everything that happens. Though this probably might not happen, here is a possibility

-US builds SMD
-US launches ICBM at Russia
-Russia Retaliates
-Russian Missles destroyed by SMD
-US , feeling cocky, attacks China
-China retaliates
-etc.

This is just a scenario, it will probably never happen, but at the rate things are going, it could, though small chance. Not saying America will kill world.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Why taking the possibilety of a new arm's race if the whole project is usseles anyway? The only nuke's that project could possibly (thus with a certain fail percentage ,and not being able to stop a mass of them) hit are the one's flying partly through space ,the long range nukes.That is only a small percentage of nuke weaponry ,and thus ,with all the limitation's to the prject ,it can imposibly stop Ore a ,fullout nuke attack or an nuclear attack placed by let's say terrorists.Nuke's come with submarine's ,even with suit cases these day's.It's impoosible to stop ,there is no such thing as full proof SDI yet.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by Ohwell
-US builds SMD
-US launches ICBM at Russia

You realize that the US is a democracy, right? It's not just Bush sitting at a big control center firing off nukes. There are a lot more people involved in the decision process, so that even if Bush were a psycho he wouldn't be able to launch an ICBM at Russia.
Now let's just say that somehow it did happen. There would be massive repercussions here (not talking about retaliatory missles) because the American people certainly do NOT want to go around blowing up millions of other people.

 

[Ohwell]

Yes, you are right, but I am saying that the United States is doing some freaky things since Bush took office there. By leaving the ABM Treaty, they are saying "we can build as many long range nukes we want". That seems a bit bad. The US is leaving it's own treaty.

SMD is seems to be Bush's pet project.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Bush has proposed deep reductions in strategic nuclear weapons, not increases.

 

[amadeus]

The thought that the United States would attack a developing democracy now is stupid.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by Ohwell
...the United States is doing some freaky things since Bush took office there.

Well some freaky things have happened to the US since Bush took office here.

From what I've heard, Russia is ok with us leaving the treaty. The reason that we're doing it is not to build up our nuclear arsenal, but because there is a clause in the treaty that prevents the tests required for us to implement the missle defense, which by the way would shield Russia and all of our allies in addition to ourselves. Earlier this week I heard that along with leaving the treaty that Powell was trying to get a new nuclear-warhead-reduction pact going with Russia.

 

[amadeus]

I'll say it again: the Soviet Union, at the time of the signing of the ABM Treaty, had already constructed anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.

They were pretty effective. Nine out of ten South Korean airliners were shot down with excellent precision.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

But does SDI really works? I know there're some tests but will it really work? Will it provide 100% protection?

And if it works, so? If I am a terrorist and I know that I can't launch a nuke into the USA using a missile (if I even want to attk America in the first place), hey I can think up of a million other ways to hit America. Briefcase nukes, anyone?

Right now, there's a lot of goodwill for America cos of 911 but it's running down cos of this strong strand of unilateralism in American foreign policy. Publicly, most govts say little but privately, I don't think they really like to rock the boat.

But hey America is the only superpower. They can do anything they want, can't they? And nobody on the planet can stop them.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
I'll say it again: the Soviet Union, at the time of the signing of the ABM Treaty, had already constructed anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems.

They were pretty effective. Nine out of ten South Korean airliners were shot down with excellent precision.

A passenger airliner is not a missile, not matter how you look at it from whichever angle.

Those systems can shoot down jumbo jets. So?

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I am for the introduction of NMD, as it removes the possibility of large scale nuclear war. It may lead to China trying to build up its arsenal, but to get to the numbers necessary, it would cost them dear.
Under the ABM treaty of 1972, each side was allowed to establish one ABM system, with the Soviet one being centred on Moscow.
SDI is a far bigger proposition, and it has been rightly noted that it is of little effect against terrorist attacks. But there are other measures to deal with that.
As for the allegation that Bush is a warmonger, and would suddenly one day decide to nuke another nation, it is too ridiculous to pay attention to. Even if he did suddenly lose his mind, there is a procedure to follow, and a nuclear strike that is non-retaliatory requires confirmation by a Cabinet member.
The number of strategic nukes have been reduced, but it is always best to have an insurance policy.

 

[Maj]

And Americans wonder why they pay "too much taxes"?

"Great" leaders are recognized by two things: building great projects and winning wars. Bush is well on his way at accomplishing both.

Frankly, I don't see much use in a missle defense shield when hostile members of one of these "rogue" nations could more easily smuggle a nuclear device into the US in a cargo container rather than risk deep-fried homeland by launching a piece of technology they don't have.

But I'm no strategic military planner.

Funny how we plan so hastily for war with the slightest of provocation but when given information that proves with close certainty that we're destroying our world with pollution, we keep on chugging along, hoping our marvelous technology will drag us out of the muck.

-Maj

 

[PinkyGen]

While I don't believe Bush is doing this because he is a warmonger, I don't think it is a good idea.

1. I do not think the SDI will be effective. It will be expensive, and only limited to ICBM's, not low rockets, Biological Weapons, or suitcase bombs. There are ways around it.

2. I'm glad the Russians are somewhat ok with it (its an informal deal, that's why they aren't complaining to much). Still, this will encourage China to increase its arsenal, which will encourage India to increase its arsenal, which will encourage Pakistan... you get my drift.

3. Image problem. It does make us look unilteralistic and not caring about international treaties. And it makes the allies uneasy, since SDI will not protect them, but we want to base part of the system on their countries.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by PinkyGen
... And it makes the allies uneasy, since SDI will not protect them, but we want to base part of the system on their countries.

Read this excerpt from a news article a few days ago (especially the last lines):

--------------------------------------------------

U.S. will withdraw from 1972 nuclear treaty, officials say

12/11/2001

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. - President Bush will soon give Russia notice that the United States is withdrawing from the 1972 nuclear treaty that bans testing of missile defense systems, U.S. government officials said Tuesday.

He will announce the decision in the next several days, effectively invoking a clause in the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that requires the United States and Russia to give six months' notice before abandoning the pact.

Initial White House plans called for announcing the decision Thursday, but officials cautioned that date could change. The four government officials spoke on condition of anonymity.
With the decision, Bush takes the first step toward fulfilling a campaign pledge to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that he says will protect the United States and its allies, including Russia, from missiles fired by rogue nations.